Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Optimal EXT3 Partitions for 1 TB disk and seperate /home, no Windows

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Optimal EXT3 Partitions for 1 TB disk and seperate /home, no Windows

    I am getting ready to partition the hard disk in my new computer for 64 bit Kubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron. The hard disk is 1 TB (more than one trillion bytes), and I plan to use EXT3 for all partitions. There will be no Windows or NTFS partitions on this box. I want my /home to be a separate partition.

    I have read Rog131's post FAQ: How to Partition, and many of the articles linked from it.

    My plan is to use the first three primary partitions for Kubuntu, and make an extended partition in the last primary partition. The extended partition is for future use, as I haven't yet decided what to do with so much space. For simplicity's sake I am not bothering to count every byte, so the math approximate at best. With over one trillion bytes storage, I don't see why I should care whether 1 GB = 2^30 bytes or 10^9 bytes.

    Primary 1: / = ? GB
    Primary 2: SWAP = ? GB
    Primary 3: /home = ? GB
    Primary 4: EXTENDED

    For "/", I think I can guess the size based on my old system. The old system has 32 bit Kubuntu 8.04.3 Hardy Heron and has been in use about 6 months. The old system has /home in the same partition as "/", so some math is needed to calculate size of "/" without including /home.

    Code:
    ~$ du -h -s -x / /home/ken/
    du: cannot read directory `/etc/cups/ssl': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/etc/ssl/private': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/tmp/ksocket-root': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/root/.gconf': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/root/.kde': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/root/.config': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/root/.gconfd': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/root/.mozilla': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/root/.emacs.d/auto-save-list': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/root/.aptitude': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/var/tmp/kdecache-jan': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/var/tmp/kdecache-root': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/var/spool/cups': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/var/spool/cron/atjobs': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/var/spool/cron/atspool': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/var/spool/cron/crontabs': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/var/games/falconseye': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/var/cache/ldconfig': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/var/log/samba/cores': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/var/lib/PolicyKit': Permission denied
    du: cannot read directory `/lost+found': Permission denied
    76G   /
    71G   /home/ken/
    $ echo $((76 - 71))
    5
    Thus I believe the size of "/" is about 5 GB, not including /home. To be safe, I think I should double this to 10 GB for "/' on the new system.

    For SWAP, I think a good size is double my physical RAM. Since the new disk has plenty of space I could even allocate more, but would that really be necessary? The new system has 6 GB physical RAM, so the new SWAP should be 12 GB.

    For /home, I have some concerns. The old system's /home is about 100 GB, and I find myself running out of space for my videos, pictures, and music. My first inclination is to allocate about half the remaining space for the new /home, which would leave about 500 GB for the EXTENDED partition.

    Primary 1: "/" = 10 GB
    Primary 2: SWAP = 12 GB
    Primary 3: /home = about 500 GB
    Primary 3: EXTENDED = about 500 GB

    But now I wonder, how large can an EXT3 partition grow before performance degrades? Other filesystems (e.g. FAT32) perform poorly when partition size reaches a certain limit, even though the filesystem may support larger partition sizes.

    Possible uses for secondary partitions in the extended partition:
    • media for DVD and CD ISOs (would be quite large)
    • torrents for preventing fragmentation in /home caused by torrent activity
    • 2burn for things waiting to be burned to optical disc


    What other considerations are there for partitioning such a large disk? Perhaps "/" or SWAP should be larger? Perhaps /home should be smaller? Am I forgetting anything?

    Your thoughts?
    Welcome newbies!
    Verify the ISO
    Kubuntu's documentation

    #2
    Re: Optimal EXT3 Partitions for 1 TB disk and seperate /home, no Windows

    Hi Telengard, here are my thoughts:

    1. No need for a swap with the huge amount of RAM you have
    2. No need for fancy partitioning unless it is a server

    Here is what I would do:

    Code:
    /         20GB     ext4
    another   20GB     ext4
    /home    the rest    ext4
    Rationale: ext4 is overall fast with both large and small files. You can use the second 20GB partition to experiment with another distro, for instance running the next release while in development, etc

    Now, if you are willing to be a little disciplined and put the large media files in a separate partition, I would recommend:
    Code:
    /         20GB     ext4
    another   20GB     ext4
    /home    100GB    ext4
    /data     the rest    xfs
    Rationale: /home should need a lot less, but it's always good to have lots of extra room in case you edit movies, encode/decode media, download iso,s, etc. IMHO sfs is best for large (large filesystems, large files).

    Hope this helps!
    -- Leo

    Comment


      #3
      Re: Optimal EXT3 Partitions for 1 TB disk and seperate /home, no Windows

      Are you planning to have more than one distribution (or release) on your system ?


      I have the stable and the development version of the 'buntu (now 9.04 and 9.10). Sometimes i also test other Linux distributions. So i would have 3 x (root + home).

      Looking the root partition at here - i have been using 10G. Now the 9.04 is using 6 G and the 9.10 is using 7 G. Maybe 15 G would be enough.

      I keep in the home partition only the settings (+ thumbnails directory etc ) - my home partitions are 10G.

      I have several data partitons. /video, /music, /torrent, /build, /etc... I link (symlink) those partitions to the home directory.

      The swap - i think that this is logical (the RAM is fast - the swap is slow...) > Topic: How much swapspace does one realyy need? >> All About Linux Swap Part 3: Analysis:
      Desktop:

      Because the old “two times” model is bunk, some are recommending a new allocation guideline that goes something like this:

      RAM SWAP
      ≤ 2GB = RAM
      > 2GB = 2GB
      That is valid, if you don't plan to hibernate.


      So - i would split 1T:

      15 G root 1
      10 G home 1
      15 G root 2
      10 G home 2
      15 G root 3
      10 G home 3
      2 G swap
      ------------
      77 G

      + several data partitons (maybe: 4x225 G)
      -------------
      1000 G
      Before you edit, BACKUP !

      Why there are dead links ?
      1. Thread: Please explain how to access old kubuntu forum posts
      2. Thread: Lost Information

      Comment


        #4
        Re: Optimal EXT3 Partitions for 1 TB disk and seperate /home, no Windows

        And, now for a different approach than Rog ...

        Originally posted by Telengard

        I plan to use EXT3 for all partitions.
        I would seriously encourage you to consider the benefits of ext4. The reduction in fsck time on a 300GB partition is a LOT, for example. ext4 has been stable since kernel 2.6.28 -- over a year ago now. I have been running a 1.5TB drive with 4 ext4 partitions for over 6 months with zero issues.



        My plan is to use the first three primary partitions for Kubuntu, and make an extended partition in the last primary partition. The extended partition is for future use, as I haven't yet decided what to do with so much space. For simplicity's sake I am not bothering to count every byte, so the math approximate at best. With over one trillion bytes storage, I don't see why I should care whether 1 GB = 2^30 bytes or 10^9 bytes.

        Primary 1: / = ? GB
        Heck, you might want to download some DVD ISO images and not worry about which partition has enough space. Just make it 20GB and worry about other stuff.


        Primary 2: SWAP = ? GB
        Even though I have 4GB of RAM, I have been living happily with a 2GB swap partition, even using suspend-to-disk. The fact is you're not gonna be swapping much -- the only value it has for your situation is S2DISK aka "hibernate".


        Primary 3: /home = ? GB
        It's your choice. I've been going with the 20GB root filesystem and leaving /home in it. The data can be on /mnt/DATA and that can be your third partition -- you can symlink to your data in your /home/user folder (same as Rog's approach). It's a good setup in case you ever want to put a second OS on, and not have interference with user settings in the /home folder.

        I use a Parted Magic Live CD for the partitioning and formatting.

        p.s. All the Gparted implementations measure partition size in MB, and use 1024 MB = 1 GB. So, if you would like to see nice round partition sizes in GB, use your calculator while setting the size in GParted. 20,480 MB = 20.0 GB, for example.

        Comment


          #5
          Re: Optimal EXT3 Partitions for 1 TB disk and seperate /home, no Windows

          @ EXT4 proponents, this is scaring the hell out of me!:

          http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...t4-740467.html
          Welcome newbies!
          Verify the ISO
          Kubuntu's documentation

          Comment


            #6
            Re: Optimal EXT3 Partitions for 1 TB disk and seperate /home, no Windows

            Originally posted by Telengard
            @ EXT4 proponents, this is scaring the hell out of me!:

            http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...t4-740467.html
            That is old, old, news -- it did cause a big controversy and dustup at the time, as ext4 was relatively new for most users. Similar to the infamous laptop hdd head-unloading issue "Ubuntu is killing your hard drive!" thing, it turned out there was a reasonable and understandable technical explanation behind the lurid headline for the ext4 situation too. I'll see if Google can find it, but basically IIRC it went about like this:

            "Dear user, you are accustomed to an ext3 "feature" which is actually a non-compliance with the (Posix, I think) standard for *nix filesystems. It was never a desirable feature for general application, it is not enabled by default in ext4, and therefore the behavior that you have been accustomed to seeing in ext3 on that particular parameter, in the event of a hard drive crash, is not present in ext4, and therefore if you are betting your data security on that particular non-compliance, you might indeed run into a problem when you crash an ext4 system".

            I'll see I can find the real deal answer.


            EDIT: Technical explanation here: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubun...81/comments/45

            EDIT #2: If you can stand to wade through this, it should set your mind pretty much at ease: http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/artic...enchmarks-pt-1

            You'll also be interested in the performance testing in Parts 2 and 3 of the same article.

            I actually have a total of 7 partitions on two large hard drives in ext4 filesystems, since I installed 9.04 (subsequently replaced by Karmic). One is for the OS, the rest are data of various types -- music, videos, docs, and images. There was a power-loss event at my house during the summer -- I don't recall whether the UPS bought me enough time for a graceful shutdown or not, but there were no data loss or fsck problems.

            Comment


              #7
              Re: Optimal EXT3 Partitions for 1 TB disk and seperate /home, no Windows

              I agree. To be practical, I've been using ext4 since Jaunty without any issues, in 3 machines (home desktop, eeepc and now i started, well, this would be karmic, on the Dell Vostro A90). Of course, YMMV, but hey, I can honestly say I am not concerned, and you'll get a lot more performance. On the other hand, xfs would be dangerous for root (there is a longstanding issue). Again, some weird interpretation of POSIX, but in practice you can have issues booting off of it.

              Comment


                #8
                Re: Optimal EXT3 Partitions for 1 TB disk and seperate /home, no Windows

                I tried XFS for a root filesystem and for data storage partitions. On my root system, I had an 8GB VMware VM, and I'm pretty sure that was the reason for a 6-month lifespan for the XFS installation. The symptom was a gradually increasing shutdown time for the VM Player, which, in the end was taking 10 minutes to shut down (and scaring the hell out of me).

                The data partitions were fine as XFS -- I never observed any problem. But they were pretty close to "read-only" -- I never exercised it hard at all. After a couple of years I put in a new bigger hard drive and used ext4 and copied over my data to that. Probably the XFS would still be running fine today, as data storage.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: Optimal EXT3 Partitions for 1 TB disk and seperate /home, no Windows

                  The XFS issue us this:

                  https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/37435

                  Sounds a lot like the ext4 issue mentioned above, if not exactly the same. Maybe now that ext4 made a big splash and devs have to live with it, xfs will be safe for a rootfs. Just in case, I am using ext4, it is incredibly fast, particularly with lots of smalls reads and writes (I believe it beats xfs at that), which is what you do in / and /home for the most thing ...

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X